People are asking how so many terrorist red flags could be overlooked by so many.  The same way these "birther" red flags were not only overlooked but ridiculed:

1.  DOH Director Fukino  illegally hid until Nov 2009 the DOH Administrative Rules showing that election officials could have received a copy of Obama’s original birth certificate without his permission.  The DOH has said they can’t release any records without Obama’s permission.  But HRS 338-18(a) allows state laws and DOH rules to govern the disclosure of vital records, and the current rules -- Chapter 8b, 2.5(A)(1)(f) -- would allow any election officer transacting the placement of Obama’s name on the ballot to receive a certified copy.

2.  The DOH has falsely said that HRS 338-18 prohibits disclosure of government processing records.  There are 2 kinds of records --  the records of the vital events themselves, and records of the government’s handling of those records.

Certificates are the record of the vital events.  HRS 338-18(a) says that information about the actual birth, death, marriage, and divorce events may only be released according to the provisions set by law or Department of Health rules, thus referring everyone to the DOH Administrative Rules to see how information on actual certificates may be disclosed and to whom.  Far from barring "any disclosure" as claimed by the DOH, current Administrative Rules allow a non-certified abbreviated copy of a birth (Chapter 8b, 2.5B), marriage (Ch 8b, 2.8C), or death (Ch8b, 2.6C) certificate to be released to anyone who asks for it.  However, a public statement of where someone was born -- such as Fukino’s July 27, 2009 statement about Obama -- is not allowed by the rules (Ch 8b, 2.1A).

All other records are public, except that neither direct viewing nor certified copies are allowed unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest.  Non-certified copies, abstracts,  and disclosure of information from the documents are not prohibited -- which, according to Hawaii’s "Sunshine Law" (UIPA) means they must be disclosed upon request, except for certain exemptions, such as for information having privacy interest that outweighs the public interest in disclosure: date of birth, gender, and address .

Since a damaging disclosure of records processing was made in September (see #3), The DOH has been denying access to these records by claiming that ANY DISCLOSURE is forbidden.

3.  Though ridiculing "birthers" publicly, the DOH has PRIVATELY confirmed Obama’s online COLB’s as forgeries -- a fact the DOH has known since the beginning.  Because processing information is subject to disclosure, the DOH was forced in Sept 2009 to reveal that Obama’s birth certificate has been amended  (OIP interpretation) and that Obama or his representative has paid a fee to have his certificate amended at the very time he was considering a run for the presidency.  Amendments must be noted on the certificate (Ch 8b, 3.1), so the DOH has known this entire time that both the Factcheck.org and FightTheSmears.com COLB’s are forgeries, since they have no amendment noted.

4. The combination of certificate number and filing date on the Factcheck.org COLB is not possible.  The DOH has confirmed that the certificate number is assigned by them when they file the certificate.  The Factcheck.org COLB says it was filed at the DOH, 3 days before the Nordkye twins’ certificates but has a later number than theirs.  The DOH has refused to release the certificate number for Obama even

though they are required by UIPA to do so.

5.  Every government agency in Hawaii contacted thus far has explicitly denied that they have a responsibility to report known forgery and/or have refused to report suspected forgery to law enforcement.  This includes the Department Of Health, Office of Information Practices (OIP), lieutenant governor’s office, and every member of Hawaii’s House and Senate.  Janice Okubo of the DOH seems to have stated that law forbids her to disclose ANYTHING about a birth certificate -- even that it’s a critical, very public forgery.  The Ombudsman’s Office has said they don’t investigate crimes and only report evidence they uncover themselves.  See no evil…

6.  The amendment made to Obama’s birth certificate renders it insufficient evidence for legal purposes.  Minor administrative errors (such as typos) don’t remove the prima facie evidentiary value of a birth certificate, but such no-fault errors don’t result in a fee (Ch 8b 3.5C, 3.11, 3.1,  & HRS 338-17) and Obama was charged a fee.  Legal name changes also don’t affect the evidentiary value, but the lieutenant governor’s office has confirmed that there has been no legal name change for anyone named Obama, Dunham,  Soetoro, or Sutoro.

7.  Kapiolani Hospital received a letter signed by Obama on White House stationery and with raised seal claiming Obama was born there, even though that could only be true if Obama’s amendment contradicted the doctor’s testimony.  If he had been born in a Hawaii hospital the hospital itself would have been responsible for the content on the birth certificate and the DOH responsible for any clerical typos.  The only way Obama would be charged for an amendment is:

             a)  if he or his representative claimed to have filled out the certificate themselves and erred, or

             b)  if Obama claimed the doctor’s testimony was wrong.

8.  The DOH has broken Hawaii law to make rule changes (see July 11 addendum at bottom) that would protect Obama.  In mid-June of 2009 the DOH stated that they will no longer issue long-form birth certificates.  This is in direct violation of the current rules, without following HRS 91-3 mandates for an open process for rule changes -- the first of several such violations within the past year. 

9.  Fukino stated on July 27, 2009 that Obama’s records verify his birth in Hawaii, but Hawaii law forbids her to conclude that, since all the DOH has is legal hearsay.  According to PHR Chapter 8b and HRS 338-17, only a judicial or administrative person or group can evaluate the accuracy of the claims when an amended document is presented as evidence.  Obama has had many, many opportunities to present his birth certificate as evidence in lawsuits.  He has refused -- even going so far as rescinding military orders rather than risk a judge seeing his birth certificate.  There is no process by which Obama would present his records to Fukino as evidence.

10.  Having made the illegal statement, Fukino refused to obey UIPA which required her to release the documents on which her statement was based.

11.  The DOH has deleted documents required to be stored for at least 2 years. The DOH says it no longer has the UIPA request or invoices showing Obama’s birth certificate was amended. The DOH’s own "Rules of Practice & Procedure" (11-1-30) say that documents must be stored as long as the case can be contested --  August 2011 in this case.

12.   Fukino averted discipline against herself by promoting the OIP director, who was replaced by the attorney who has designed the DOH’s deceptive responses.  Six days after Leo Donofrio’s  blog said he would ask OIP Director Tsukiyama for disciplinary action against Fukino and Okubo for their deception, Tsukiyama resigned  from the OIP to take a promotion to a company on whose board of directors Fukino sits. He granted Cathy Takase’s request to have control of all DOH matters and asked her to replace him.

Now OIP is leaving HRS 338-18 rulings up to the DOH. All DOH responses contain deceptions #1&2, including disobeying their own rules for non-certified abbreviated copies of birth, marriage, and death certificates.  They deny that documents exist which are required by law, such as descriptions of their forms,  procedures,  and instructions which are mandated in HRS 91, etc..

Red flags. This information has been given to every lawmaker in Hawaii, the OIP, DOH, Ombudsman’s office, HI lieutenant governor’ and governor’s offices, Nebraska’s US attorney (who says they won’t take reports from citizens), and Hawaii’s director of the Department of Public Safety, as well as to multiple news organizations.  The FBI thrice said they don’t investigate document fraud. All refused to act. Red flags.

 Butterdezillion explains why Pelosi and Germond signed a different Certificate of Nomination for Hawaii. 

  Based on the outstanding research by blogger jbjd here, here, here, and here, Canada Free Press broke a story showing that Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond , as representatives of the Democratic National Committee, had signed one Certificate of Nomination for Obama and Biden that was sent to 49 states, and another that was sent only to Hawaii. Only the certificate sent to Hawaii included a statement that Obama and Biden were Constitutionally qualified to serve as President and Vice-President.

 That certificate of nomination for Hawaii is the ONLY statement in this nation signed by somebody besides Obama which claims that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President. Contrary to arguments that Congress certified Obama’s eligibility when they certified the results of the electoral vote, neither representatives of Congress nor any Secretary of State has signed a legal document saying that Obama is eligible. This one oath by Pelosi and Germond is the only legal claim that Obama’s eligibility was verified.

 And there is a huge story about how this particular certificate came to be, which the House Ethics Committee, every state Attorney General, and the public at large need to know.

 First off, they need to know that the Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed that neither Pelosi nor Germond, nor any leader of either the Democratic National Committee or the Hawaii Democratic Party, has ever even asked to see Obama’s birth certificate. So Pelosi and Germond did not sign this document because they saw a certified copy from the HDOH office. And in fact, if they had seen anything from the HDOH office they would have known his Hawaii birth certificate has been amended and has no legal value.

 It’s been removed from the web, but shortly after CFP published their original article about the Certificates of Nomination, somebody claiming to represent the DNC stated on a discussion board that the DNC relies on the state parties to verify Constitutional eligibility for candidates, so the oath by Pelosi and Germond would just confirm that the state democratic parties had confirmed the Constitutional eligibility of the candidates.

 But this is where the argument totally falls apart, because the Hawaii Democratic Party actually ignored their protocols in 2008 in order to specifically NOT certify Obama’s eligibility as they had done for candidates in the past. IOW, if Pelosi based her decision to certify on whether the state party would confirm eligibility, then she had a duty to NOT certify Obama’s eligibility, because the democratic party of the state supposedly holding Obama’s birth certificate REFUSED TO CERTIFY Obama’s eligibility.

 I requested and received from the Hawaii Dept of Elections the certificates of nomination from both the DNC and Hawaii Democratic Party (HDP). I was told their records only go as far back as 2000. In 2000 and 2004 the HDP waited until about a month after the National Convention and then signed and hand-delivered to the Hawaii Elections Office their certification that the candidates 1) were chosen by both the state and national parties and 2) were Constitutionally eligible to be President and VP. That was the HDP’s standard procedure, fulfilling both of Hawaii’s 2 requirements for placement on the ballot.

A summary of the documents:

 In 2008 the HDP signed their certification – with the Constitutional eligibility language removed – at the National Convention, on the day BEFORE Pelosi and Germond signed the DNC certificate. They then apparently gave their HDP certificate to DNC Attorney Joseph Sandler, who then had a special certificate created and signed by Pelosi and Germond just for Hawaii (since the HDP refused to certify eligibility) and then sent both certifications, with his own letter of transmittal, to the Hawaii Elections Office.

 So instead of acting independently a month after the National Convention and confirming Constitutional eligibility as in the past, the HDP acted before the Convention to take out the eligibility language from their standard certificate, signed it, and gave it to Joe Sandler before Pelosi had signed anything – signaling to the DNC that they were not going to certify eligibility. They coordinated their efforts with Joe Sandler, who sent both documents together to the HI Elections Office. Apparently Sandler, Pelosi, and Germond all knew that Hawaii’s special certification was necessary because the HDP refused to certify Obama’s eligibility.

 The question that begs an answer is: Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama’s eligibility as they had always done to successfully place presidential candidates on the ballots before?

 A former DNC official allegedly said the DNC added the eligibility language to be cautious, but that doesn’t explain why the HDP took OUT their certification which had always been sufficient in the past. Being “cautious” would mean either doing it the way it had always worked before, or ADDING to what had always worked before – not trying out an experiment that had never been tried before. In 2000 the DNC added eligibility language to the cert they sent to Hawaii alone, leaving the language off their certificates for other states. They did that in ADDITION to the eligibility certification by the HDP for that election. THAT is an example of caution on the part of the DNC – adding more documentation than needed, just in case. In 2008, though, the HDP certification that had always worked was simply swapped out for a DNC certification that had never been tried before. That isn’t caution; that’s an experiment. In 2008 the HDP deliberately removed the eligibility language from their certificate, even though simply leaving it as it always had been would have made the documentation as secure and complete as possible. Why did they do that?

Sandler had been counsel for the DNC in 1996, 2000 and 2004, and the Hawaii election law hasn’t changed since 1993 so there was no reason to believe the protocols always used weren’t sufficient. And if the DNC had questions they didn’t ask anybody about them; Deputy AG Aaron Schulaner didn’t remember anybody from the HDP or DNC asking about the requirement and said it doesn’t matter which of the 2 bodies certified eligibility.

 I called the HDP headquarters on Nov 13, 2009, to ask who had authorized their change in procedures for 2008 and why. The person I spoke with had choice words for the “crazy birthers” but refused to answer questions about how the HDP’s 2008 certificate was created. I specifically wanted to know what legal counsel had approved the changes to the document, when, and why. If there was a reasonable explanation for the change there should be no reason to hide any of that information.

 Before finding out I was a “birther” the HDP worker had said that they don’t have a specific attorney but take each issue as it comes up, with members of the Executive Committee sometimes pitching in their legal expertise. Looking online, the only attorney I was able to find who had represented the HDP in lawsuits in the last 15 years (3 different cases, 2 of which have now been scrubbed from the web and all of which are missing from the Hawaii court site) was William H Gilardy, Jr. The attorney who represented Obama’s mother in her divorce from Lolo Soetoro. Chances are good that Gilardy has actually seen Obama’s birth certificate – not the late, amended Hawaii BC which has no legal value and couldn’t be used for any legal purposes, but the one Obama actually used for identification purposes for kindergarten and college entry, application for a social security number, selective service registration, etc. All the stuff Obama has hidden.

 Brian Schatz, HDP Chairman who signed the certificate, was Obama’s campaign spokesman in Hawaii who graduated from (and later taught at) Punahou School ,where Obama graduated from high school, and spent a year in Kenya in 1992 (which overlaps Barack and Michelle’s visit to Kenya shortly before their wedding; by that time Obama had been president of Harvard Law Review and had a book deal) . He is now running for lieutenant governor and has been endorsed by Obama’s half-sister, Maya.

 The HDP refusing to certify Obama’s eligibility is bad enough as it is, but for the HDP’s usual legal counsel to be the very person who has probably seen Obama’s non-Hawaii birth certificate is explosive.

 All this was presumably known by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond when they signed that special certification for Hawaii. It was almost certainly known by Joe Sandler when he had the special certificate drawn up, counseled Pelosi and Germond to sign it, and sent the letter of transmittal with both certificates to the HI Elections Office. Calls to Sandler’s law office have been unreturned.

 The HDP refused to answer my questions because they ridicule “birthers”. I solemnly suggest that if nobody in law enforcement will compel answers before then, the 2011 House Ethics Committee – hopefully under Rep Darrell Issa – initiate an investigation into potential perjury by Nancy Pelosi, aided by the potential subornation of perjury by DNC Attorney Joseph Sandler.